5 ms·

These are some nice concepts, but this is entirely overbaked (in my opinion). I don't find the colors of VS2k10 "distracting" me or making it "difficult" to fi

These are some nice concepts, but this is entirely overbaked (in my opinion). I don't find the colors of VS2k10 "distracting" me or making it "difficult" to find things at all. I am glad, however, they're removing a bunch of those useless buttons by default (of course you can always remove them yourself, but I digress). I can appreciate what they're attempting here, but why go this far without a road back? If you're going to completely overhaul the look and feel this much, and go so far as to let people choose between 2 different color schemes, why not at least give people the option of using the classic scheme, or allow for custom user developed schemes (which would invariably give rise to a few "classic" ones anyways). Maybe they mentioned this and I missed it... I hope thats the case. I've always felt the U/I got better with each iteration since the original VS, but this is the first time I'm not excited to get my hands on the next version based solely on the look and feel. Of course, I'll have to reserve final judgement for when I actually get my hands on it.

lordlicorice 15y ago
You can already set (and share) color schemes for what really matters- the code editor. As long as I get to keep my editor colors, I'm sure it will be no big deal to get used to any changes to the chrome.
- manuscreationis 15y ago
  Yea, but that's not really what I'm talking about. I mean purely the shell of the U/I - Although it would be good if both of those things were configurable in the same way, so you could truly share a completely customized and tuned color scheme
tlianza 15y ago
100% agree. If this is what they spent time on, as opposed to the fact that, say, 'find' is dog-slow and doesn't reliably cancel, or that copy/paste randomly stops working, or that it has a tendency to hang several times a day... well, I just don't understand the priorities.
contextfree 15y ago
IMO, they need to distinguish between places where icons are peripheral "chrome" and places where the icons actually represent what in the context of how you are using them is effectively "content" that you care about. e.g. it makes sense for the standard toolbar buttons at the top to be de-emphasized (and for there to be fewer of them, bravo!) as the vast majority of the time they're on screen, I care about my code and not about the toolbar buttons. It doesn't make sense for the GUI controls available in Toolbox, for example, to "fade into the background" - presumably if I have the Toolbox open, the available controls are something I care about. Or if they're not, why is the Toolbox there taking a third of the screen? If you ever have a situation where two-thirds of the screen are consumed by "de-emphasized monochromatic chrome", you're probably doing it wrong - if they're not important you need to figure out how to reduce their physical screen presence, if they're important you can / should give them a more distinctive presentation.
sixothree 15y ago
> I've always felt the U/I got better with each iteration since the original VS, but this is the first time I'm not excited to get my hands on the next version based solely on the look and feel. I feel the same about Windows 8. These products are ugly. I am deeply concerned about the direction Microsoft has taken.

lordlicorice 15y ago

You can already set (and share) color schemes for what really matters- the code editor. As long as I get to keep my editor colors, I'm sure it will be no big deal to get used to any changes to the chrome.

manuscreationis 15y ago
Yea, but that's not really what I'm talking about. I mean purely the shell of the U/I - Although it would be good if both of those things were configurable in the same way, so you could truly share a completely customized and tuned color scheme

tlianza 15y ago

100% agree. If this is what they spent time on, as opposed to the fact that, say, 'find' is dog-slow and doesn't reliably cancel, or that copy/paste randomly stops working, or that it has a tendency to hang several times a day... well, I just don't understand the priorities.

contextfree 15y ago

IMO, they need to distinguish between places where icons are peripheral "chrome" and places where the icons actually represent what in the context of how you are using them is effectively "content" that you care about. e.g. it makes sense for the standard toolbar buttons at the top to be de-emphasized (and for there to be fewer of them, bravo!) as the vast majority of the time they're on screen, I care about my code and not about the toolbar buttons. It doesn't make sense for the GUI controls available in Toolbox, for example, to "fade into the background" - presumably if I have the Toolbox open, the available controls are something I care about. Or if they're not, why is the Toolbox there taking a third of the screen? If you ever have a situation where two-thirds of the screen are consumed by "de-emphasized monochromatic chrome", you're probably doing it wrong - if they're not important you need to figure out how to reduce their physical screen presence, if they're important you can / should give them a more distinctive presentation.

sixothree 15y ago

> I've always felt the U/I got better with each iteration since the original VS, but this is the first time I'm not excited to get my hands on the next version based solely on the look and feel. I feel the same about Windows 8. These products are ugly. I am deeply concerned about the direction Microsoft has taken.